- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1181 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. G.V. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE GOWDAR VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETD. BY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY R/AT MIG-II, HOUSE NO.13, NETAJINAGAR BELLARY-583 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIT POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKATESH S.ARABHATTI, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SETTING THE ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (P.C.ACT) BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.710/2018, THEREBY REJECTING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against rejection of application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.12. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that while registering Crime No.31/2014 in respect of this petitioner is concerned, the specific allegation in the charge- sheet is that this petitioner being the head of the department i.e., Vigilance Squad, inspite of no permit and based on invalid and created permits, allowed transportation of iron ore in 99 vehicles and the same was seized on 03.03.2010 and in this connection, did not mention the actual cost of iron ore and the fine amount imposed. As a result, caused loss to the tune of Rs.28,31,234/- and also collected an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe. Hence, investigation is conducted and sanction is sought under Section 197 and sanction was given for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is also invoked against the petitioner herein. 4. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that FIR was registered in 2014 and allegation against this petitioner is that he had collected lesser fine amount and the same cannot be a ground to prosecute him and the allegation against the petitioner also not satisfies the ingredients which have been invoked against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case and imputation made against this petitioner is under Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that there was no demand for bribe and the very allegation is that incident has taken place on 03.03.2010 and collected bribe amount is erroneous and inspite of the grounds which have been urged before the Trial Court, the Trial Court not considered the same and committed an error in coming to the conclusion that matter requires to be tried regarding accusation made against the petitioner and rejected the application. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 5. Per contra, learned Spcial Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of probative value of the report filed by the Investigating Officer and particularly brought to notice of this Court statement of C.Ws.81 to 86 and also 91 and inspite of 99 vehicles being seized, collected lesser fine amount and caused loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.28,31,234/-. He would vehemently contend that having considered the material on record, the authority has given sanction to proceed against him. It is also contended that when raid was conducted, pen drive was seized and details of giving bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to this petitioner is also mentioned in the document. When such material is considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court passed an order that at the time of considering discharge application, the Court cannot look into the defence of the accused and only to see the material collected by the Investigating Officer and hence, contend that it does not require any interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 considering the grounds urged in the petition, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., even though there was no material against the petitioner as contended? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 7. It is the specific case of the prosecution against this petitioner that on 03.03.2010, this petitioner and his team claimed to have inspected in all 1,153 lorries and found 99 lorries being engaged in transporting iron ore without valid permit. Accused No.12 after seizure of vehicles, he has handed over custody of those vehicles to Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Karwar for further legal action. Accused No.12 has also forwarded a report directing the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology Department, Karwar to release the vehicles after collecting penalty of Rs.40,49,386/-. The prosecution main relied upon the statement of C.Ws.80 and 86 that accused has directed C.W.86 to collect prescribed amount of penalty from the seized lorry owners and thereby assisted - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 accused No.1 and 6 to acquire pecuniary advantage. It is also the allegation that at the time of directing C.W.86 to collect the prescribed fine/penalty, accused No.12 has not followed the rules and rates prescribed by IBM for the month of February, 2010 and thereby caused loss of Rs.28,31,234/- to the State. 8. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that FIR was registered in 2014 and allegation made in the charge-sheet against him is that he had collected lesser fine amount and offence which have been invoked against the petitioner not commensurate with the offence which has been committed and even ingredients of such offence will also not come to the aid of the prosecution. Having taken note of the said contention also, the Court while considering the material available on record, particularly the charge-sheet material, recorded the statement of witnesses, particularly C.Ws.81 and 86 and they made specifically made the statement that there was no proper permit to transport iron ore through 99 lorries and got released them by giving instructions, but collected lesser fine amount and when witnesses have made such statement and during the course of investigation, it came to light that lesser amount was collected. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 Hence, sanction was given to prosecute the petitioner by considering the material on record and whether sanction is valid or not and the same also to be considered during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering discharge application and the very contention that there is no material on record to prosecute the petitioner cannot be accepted. The law is settled that at the time of considering discharge application, Court has to look into the material available on record and if that records disclose even strong suspicion, that itself is enough to proceed against the petitioner and defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at the time of considering discharge application. When such material is collected and statement of witness is also recorded and Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that loss is caused to the tune of Rs.28,31,234/- to the State-Exchequer and the same has to be considered during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering discharge application. 9. Having considered the material on record and reasoning given by the Trial Court, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defence cannot be considered at the time of considering the discharge application and also taken note of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 contra and circumstantial evidence against accused No.12 to prove the defence and prosecution also obtained sanction and the Trial Court also taken note of the same. Apart from that the Trial Court also in paragraph No.19 discussed in detail that statement of witness i.e., Senior Geologist by name Sri S.B. Sampath Krishna was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of witness, particularly in C.W.89 is also recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein he has deposed that he was working as attender in the office of Mines and Geology in the year 2010 and that on 06.03.2010, accused No.12 has visited their office in connection with seizure of 99 lorries. The witness has stated that he went to District Treasury for depositing sum of Rs.21,68,095/- and also Rs.6,12,463/- and accused No.12 has also accompanied with them. C.W.88 has identified copy of the challan and it was filled by him and he has also identified the signature of C.W.86. All these materials are taken note by the Trial Court while considering the application and observed that these materials to be considered during the course of trial. When such material is collected and Investigating Officer also collected the material and recorded the statement of witnesses, I do not find any - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7921 CRL.RP No. 1181 of 2021 error in the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the application and the grounds which have been urged also to be considered during the course of trial and not at the stage of considering the discharge application. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application and matter requires trial. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is dismissed. (ii) The observations made in the order shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33